Right now, I'd still have to say it's the Republicans to lose. No way they should lose taking the senate, but as moderate voters get to know some of the wacky positions of the Teapublicans, it'll have the effect of re-electing certain Democrats in states where they'd usually lose.
America seems to be over the Tea Party. Even Boehner was mocking them on Friday.
I think the bellweather is McConnell in Kentucky. Seems there's a hunger to throw out some of the old farts and I've never seen him this seriously in trouble before.
If there is a malaise out there for old white guys who seem to be stalling government, it doesn't bode well for Republicans in the fall.
Seems that their fixation on Obamacare and Benghazi and the IRS just haven't materialized or gained any traction outside the right-wing echo chamber, particularly with the news that the IRS was actually looking more at ACORN ripoff groups and other lefty groups, while Tea Party groups were only 3rd on their list.
I concur with you on some of this and like how you worded it, alot.
Yes, the McConnell race is likely to be a marquee race this year, not sure how much it means outside of KY. However, with Alison Lundgren in KY and Michelle Nunn in GA, we are looking at two women who have real chances of winning those respective races for the Democratic Party.
Mitch McConnell rode in on the Reagan 1984 re-election landslide wave, barely beating Walt Huddleston (by
+0,4%,
49.9% to Huddleston's
49.5%), who served two terms and was elected in KY AGAINST the Nixon 1972 wave. This will be McConnell's sixth senatorial election campaign and he reached his high-water mark in the 2002 mid-terms, having beaten Lois Weinberg in a massive blowout, by
+29.4%. If it really looks like Lundgren may be winning, then I bet bottom dollar that Bill Clinton (who is still beloved in much of the Commonwealth) will be campaigning for her, to help her get over the top, if possible.
Also, in presidential politics, until 2008, Kentucky really was a kind of narrow bellwether. From 1964-1996, it went with the national winner in the EV and until 2008 with the winner in the EC. Since 2000, it has been increasingly more Conservative and gave Mitt Romney the largest landslide for a Republican since Nixon in 1972. But Bill Clinton did win in this state twice. If Hillary becomes the DEM nominee (and I am sure she will), then the DEMS will want to capture KY in 2016, and having a Democratic senator from this state would be a leg up for them.
So, yes, I think that a lot of money will go into Kentucky and Georgia this time around.
That being said - and I have written this more than once - also once on this thread -
it is definitely ADVANTAGE GOP in this cycle, alone based on the overwhelming trend in electoral history of mid-terms and congressional elections overall.
Once again, I point to these links:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/elect...pared-to-presidential-terms-1855-present.html
(from January 14th, 2014, more than 3 months ago)
-and-
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet...WmxQNjAtOFFvM3p4S3NvTWRGNGc&usp=sharing#gid=0
Go read the op very thoroughly. It proves that regardless of the issues of the day, the opposition party does
extraordinarily well in mid-terms,
especially in 2nd-presidential term mid-terms. See: Eisenhower 1958, LBJ 1966, Nixon/Ford 1974, Reagan 1986, Bush 43 2006. The notable exception for a 2nd presidential term mid-term is Clinton 1998 and the notable exception for a 1st presidential term mid-term is Bush 43 2002.
Generic polling shows pretty much a patt-situation between the GOP and DEMS in congressional races, but that is not good enough. With the kind of "Gerrymandering" that has been going on, the DEMS need at least a consistent
+7 advantage (which they will not have) in order to get the HOR back. I suspect that the GOP will increase it's margin in the HOR by
+11 or so. This means that I am sure they will pick up at least 5 seats total, maybe more. The DEMS will pick-up some seats, very likely in California, maybe in Nevada, also in New Mexico, but they will lose seats elsewhere.
In the Senate, the cards are stacked for the GOP to begin with. They only need six pick ups to win, and even if Lundgren (D) wins in KY and/or Nunn (D) wins in Georgia, the GOP has real possibilities in at least 7 or 8 states
outside of KY and GA. The state of Michigan could suddenly become VERY important in this cycle. I would be surprised if the GOP doesn't win the Senate, but with such a narrow margin, it will be just as deadlocked in 2015 as it is now.
Remember: a Democrat (me) just once again wrote that this year will be a GOP year. This is totally predictable and absolutely in-line with electoral history.
On a side note, the 2014 Ohio gubernatorial race will also be a marquee race, with wide reaching implications for 2016. Ohio is trending more and more blue, but also losing more and more on electoral firepower. I suspect that after 2020, both Ohio and Georgia will have 17 EV apiece. Right now, it's Ohio 18 / Georgia 16, but in 1964, 50 years ago, Ohio had 26 EV and Georgia had only 12. Times have changed, and Georgia is becoming a real power-player on the presidential electoral map.
So, I will be watching the 2014 elections with great interest, but unless there is a massive paradigm shift and knowing that Democratic voters tend to be far lazier in mid-terms than Republican voters, it really is
advantage: GOP in this year.
